Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by "chaining" two or more together?
For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than the up-stream one?
Thanks,
Tripp Light told me it works that way. I use two in some areas. But only unplugging in a storm is 100% guarnteed.
Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.
. I would get a single suppressor with high ratings. They are readily available at rather low cost.
The division of the protection between the suppressors depends on the clamp voltage of the MOVs in the suppressors.
If chained, I would plug-in only to the most downstream suppressor.
Any manufacturer with a protected equipment warranty is likely to say the warranty is void.
UL does not intend for any plug strips to be chained.
Everything that is interconnected needs to be plugged into the same suppressor. External wires, like phone and cable, also need to go through the suppressor. .
. UPSs, of the kind commonly used, do not intrinsically provide any surge protection. The surge protection included in a plug-in suppressor is commonly added.
Compare surge ratings.
And in the US get a UPS that includes UL1449 listing (surge suppressors). Many (most?) UPSs don't.
Actually, if you think about it, it really doesn't matter. All the protection elements end up in parallel even though the plugins are in "series". With one plugged into the other it won't make a bit of difference. A "big" one and a "small" one will result in the small one always being the guy to fail first anyway since it'll be the first to go under fault cases. So, a second one does add some protection, but not as much as one would expect. Two identical units would not result in twice the juoles of protection because one's components will always fire first and clamp first, leaving the other one to sit there nice and cool. They won't both clamp most of the time except under long, sustained faults and then one will try to source it all, blow, and leave the other one to take its place. It's really better to have one larger, better designed unit than multiple smaller ones. The conduction points, knees, and clamp times/voltages are not very closely controled, especially in the cheap units. All they're really there for are a few short duration spikes in excess of about 600V, then once fired, try to pull that voltage down to something lower until it burns itself out or the voltage goes away.
Do a Google for "how to's" & designs on surge supression; it's pretty interesting stuff. I used to do safety testing on them for UL certifications & componentry.
Right; they're good protectors on the regulated side, but not on the unregulated outputs. The batteries, caps & xfrms provide a lot of surge protection just by having to be there for the design. And yes, I'm including switching supplies.
Cheers,
. The plug-ins are in "parallel". .
. Depends on the actual clamp voltage of the MOVs in the 2 units. If the "bigger" one has a lower clamp voltage it will take most of the hit and may well fail first. .
. MOVs don?t work by "firing".
If they have the same nominal clamp voltage and a strong surge, one will take more of the hit (unless the MOVs have been ?matched?). The voltage across that MOV goes up with the current through the MOV. That can allow the parallel MOV to start conducting. .
. Anytime MOVs are paralleled in a suppressor by a competent manufacturer they will be "matched". .
MOVs don?t fire. The current goes up rapidly as the voltage rises. Below a characteristic voltage the current is negligible. They don?t pull the voltage down. They try to prevent it from going up. .
. The type most commonly used are good protectors on the regulated side only while in back-up mode. That is after an event.
In normal operation the "regulated side" is connected to the incoming line and there is no intrinsic protection.
. Switch mode power supplies provide some surge protection on the line side depending on how big the DC side caps are.
An insurance company, a power utility, Martzloff and others did a very limited examination of equipment allegedly damaged by surges. A number of computer power supplies had input side diodes burned out (surge current to the caps). There were a few blown fuses. Some power supplies worked after fuses/diodes were replaced.
Same diff.
Something's silly there; you don't get different specs on bars to vary that widely. Nearly every power strip sold uses the same design levels, which are very minimal anyway w/r to protecting equipment from more than in-home surges and spikes. There may be something to what you say, but it would be more accurate to say that the one that reaches the clamp voltage first will be the first one to be damaged. I actually shouldn't has said it WILL be the cheapie, although odds are it almost always will be.
The "actual" clamp voltage etc. are never identical between components. You're not likely to find different clamp voltages of much variation and tolerances almost always negate them anyway. It isn't the clamp voltage, it's the shape of the knee curve and how quickly one does or doesn't get to the point where it begins to clamp. The clamp voltage is not the voltage at which the component begins to conduct: It is the voltage level the component tries to maintain after it has begin conducting. It may take 600V to start the clamping action, and then if current remains high enough it will try to clamp it down to 300V or whatever the clamp voltage spec happens to be.
Call it what you want. To "fire" would be to move up the power knee until the component begins to conduct, and then it will try to pull the voltage down to its design clamp voltage whle the current remains within its range of capabilities. I consider that firing. You can play with syntax and semantics all you want, but it's a stupid point and makes me wonder what your real point is. Also, MOVs have fallen from favor for any but the cheapest power strips anymore. That happened years ago when better components became price competitive.
No, they specifically will NOT be. They will have the same specs, but they will not be matched within those specs to make th em nearly identical to each other. There is no reason to. It would drive their costs up very quickly. MOVs, which seem to be the only component you understand, are much like fuses; you cannot test them reliably enough to pick matched components.
There's your semantic lunacy again. Take a closer look; the clamp voltage is NOT the voltage at which they begin to conduct current. Go to any mfr and take a look at the specs and you'll even note "fire" points on several of them. MOVs are NOT linear devices and it's far from as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.
Wrong. Don't be so lazy; go do some of your own research. And a UPS only comes on after a power loss of greater than xx mS or brownout conditions as measured by the UPS itself. You're mixed up apparently between line conditioners and uninterruptable power supplies. You can get line conditioning WITH a UPS, but you're going to pay for it. But line conditioning has almost nothing to do with this subject.
Well, sorry to tell you ths, but there is. The defunct unit at my feet here contains exactly 9 surge/spike components, 3 inductors and a fusible link used as a resistor. The one I am running off at this moment carries several thousand joules of protection on the unregulated outputs, but that's not the norm. The norm is approximately the same as a decent power strip not from an Aisan country.
lol, really? The DC side caps, which is actually mostly accomplished by the battery, are NOT the surge protection. The surge protection in that area is actually very SMALL capacitors, often in the nanoFarad range, and probably a couple of tiny inductors in most of them. Large DC capacitors are INDUCTORS to high frequencies. Spikes will have very fast wavefronts which will skip right across large caps.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that you are not educated but rather have done some reading and made many mistakes in your comprehension of what little you have read of you wouldn't be making the statments you're making.
And? Is there a point to that? I've routinely seen such components replaced and the item put back into service. It's not necessarily a good idea, because if something has blown spike protection components, chances are extremely good that semiconductor materials, especially CMOS input types of just plain CMOS, have had their input diodes/capacitances/trace inductors blown too, meaning those components are, assuming they are still working, primed and ready to blow at the first hint of an extraneous voltage. They are there to protect the CMOS, say, from normal PSU transients above the rails or below their ground reference, so without them they often don't last much longer.
When you get more than a few buzzwords and some primer type reading under your belt, we can talk again, but until then I don't think I have much use for you or your so called knowledge. Suffice to say you are a dangerous person around electronics gear. I'll bet you even think that because you didn't see of feel an arc, you never transferred any static electricity to what you touched either. I hope your'e young because you have an awful lot to learn.
It will give you more current sinking ability but it wont give you faster response times. So you could take a longer charge, but not a faster one. In essence, based on the way they rate these products, it will increase protection. I don't know how useful it will be in practicality though.
Yes it surge protectors work as less responsible companies would imply. Since protectors stop or absorb surges, then more =91damns=92 should help.
Problem: protectors don't work that way. Same protection is also achieved by plugging both each power strips directly into the same duplex receptacle.
Protectors do not work by absorbing or blocking surge energy. Will those silly little parts in a power strip stop what three miles of sky could not? That is also what they imply. Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Telcos need protection.
Protectors are not protection. Protectors work by connecting surge energy to protection. Those power strips accomplish much more if plugged into receptacles attached to the breaker box. Now the protector is closer to earth ground and farther from protected appliances. Yes, separation between protector and appliance increases protection. But most important, the effective protector connects surge energy very short into earth.
Tripplite does not sell 'whole house' protectors. No obscene profits found in protectors that actually do effective protection. To install an effective protector, see products from far more responsible companies such as Square D, GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler Hammer, Intermatic, Keison, Leviton, etc. Effective protector has a short (ie 'less than 10 feet') connection to earth. Why? Protection is what absorbs all that surge energy. Protection is always about what dissipated that surge energy. Protector is woefully too tiny. But the protector can connect massive energy into earth. However it must have that short connection to earth.
One who promotes for plug-in protectors (and will not admit it) will post citations that show what protectors must do:
You somehow assumed protectors are blocking, stopping, or energy absorbing devices. If true, then chaining protectors together would make better protection. But protectors are 'diverting' devices. How well do they divert? How far is that distance to earth?
Each protection layer is defined by what provides protection. This post discussed secondary protection as defined by the breaker box earth ground. Also inspect the primary protection layer:
One earthed =91whole house=92 protector does more protection than 100 chained plug-in protectors. That=92s why your telco does not waste money on them. That is why your telco is fanatic about earthing every protector. That is why your telco can suffer maybe 100 surges to their switching computer and no damage. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground =96 where that surge energy must be dissipated.
. Engineers everywhere will be glad to find out there is no difference. .
Stated unit clamp voltages are set by UL and are very gross steps - 330,
400, ... IIRC.MOVs have more voltage levels. Characteristic voltages for a MOV depend on action at a huge number of grain boundaries throughout the volume of the device. Even MOVs with the same nominal characteristic voltage will have different real world voltages because of the impossibility of exactly matching manufacturing. Because of the very non-linear characteristic of MOVs, small differences can result in large differences in current at the same voltage. .
. Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available.
Still missing - your response to another thread where investigations from Martzloff indicate a very strong lightning strike to a utility pole behind a house results in 34Joules or less to a plug-in suppressor. .
. You are describing a device that "fires". Neon lights, gas discharge tubes, SCRs all "fire". Conduction starts after a trigger.
MOVs do not "fire". Conduction is on a continuous curve, increasing rapidly as the voltage goes up. They do not "clamp down to 300V". Source current will drag them up to 300V on a continuous curve.
[MOVs have a reaction time far faster than a surge.] .. The point is how MOVs work. You show no evidence of knowing, as in the "take 600V" paragraph above. .
. The IEEE published an excellent guide on surges and surge protection:
The IEEE says: "The vast majority (>90%) of both hard-wired and plug-in protectors use MOVs to perform the voltage-limiting function. In most AC protectors, they are the only significant voltage limiters."
MOVs are very attractive, with high current ratings and high energy dissipation ratings in a small package.
"Better components" are not specified. .
. MOVs from the same manufacturing lot may be sufficiently similar. From different lots they will not be. As I wrote above "because of the very non-linear characteristic of MOVs, small differences can result in large differences in current at the same voltage." Paralleling MOVs from different lots will result in current not being shared equally which will negate a significant part of the advantage of paralleling them. . It would drive their
. MOVs, which seem to be a device you do not understand, certainly can be "matched". .
. I said just above "the current goes up rapidly as the voltage rises". That describes a non-linear device - a Varistior, as in moV.
"May take 600V to start the clamping action, and then if current remains high enough it will try to clamp it down to 300V" does not describe MOVs. MOVs have a smooth, though non-linear characteristic I-V curve. .
. That is what I just said. .
. I agree. You shouldn?t have introduced line conditioning. .
. Well, sorry to tell you but the "9 surge/spike components" are not "intrinsically" part of the UPS. The UPS worked fine without them. They are added to the basic UPS to provide surge protection. .
. Surge protection can be added to anything. Surge protection is not "intrinsically" a part of the type of UPS commonly in use. UPSs can easily be made without the surge protection components. Surge protection is function added to a basic UPS. .
. Switch mode power supplies, the subject of the sentence above, do not have batteries. .
. Manufacturers will be glad to know they can dump the MOVs and just use nanoFarad caps and tiny inductors. .
. In the investigation below, the real world, burned out diodes were found on the input/DC side of the switch mode power supplies. The diodes were burned out by surge current to the filter caps, which acted as snubbers. .
. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that you are educated beyond your intelligence. .
. Switch mode power supplies provide 'some' surge protection. Do you want a direct reference from Martzloff? .
. When you
- learn how MOVs work - learn the difference between series and parallel - learn that the type of UPS commonly used does not *intrinsically* provide surge protection - explain why it is illegal to sell a UPS without safety compliance - explain where Martzloff was in error that a strong lightning strike produces 34Joules or less to a plug-in suppressor
we can talk again.
Not all surge protectors are created equal. One really good one is worth more than a dozen cheap ones. Just get one really good one and be happy. Generally the ones built into most UPS units are better than most. If you are in an area where it is a big problem, then I would suggest unplugging the devices. I would also suggest that you might want lightening rods for your home. We don't see many of them these days, but nothing has changed about lightening, they are still a good idea in lightning prone areas.
. The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US). And also:
The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses. .
. Only w_ talks about absorbing, blocking and stopping. .
. Apparently airplanes can?t have "effective protectors".
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING (limiting) the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or blocking or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens. This is at least the 5th time he has been to this newsgroup in the last
2 months. .. As dpb has pointed out several times, all of these "responsible companies" except SquareD make plug-in suppressors.
SquareD, for its "best" service panel suppressor, says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." .
Poor w_ has to try to discredit anyone who exposes his drivel. To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some. .
. What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". .
. If w_ was not impaired by religious blinders he could read in the IEEE guide that plug-in suppressors do not work by blocking, stopping or absorbing. .
. Service panel suppressors are a good idea. What does the NIST guide say? "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."
Never seen - a link to a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? ? Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
What defines the good one verses bad one? Price? Hardly. How to identify an ineffective protection. 1) it has no dedicated earthing wire (no wire means no lightning protection). 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. This is why the resonsible manufacturers (GE, Square D, etc) sell the 'whole house' protector. Monster Cable does not.
One thing I don't agree with is the notion that the protection is poorer because the protection device is further from ground. This works both ways. The device being protected is also further from ground so its a less attractive target if you will.
The protection is more influenced by the difference in the quality of ground between the ground pin and the neutral pin the protector device is plugged into. So being farther away from the house ground does not negatively affect protection based on the way these devices operate.
CL
. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide explains, for those who can read, that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. .
. The "responsible manufacturers" also sell plug-in suppressors. .
. w_ knows because he buys all his speaker wire from Monster Cable.
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? ? Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Again you are assuming the protector somehow absorbs or blocks surges. They don't work that way. The typically destructive surge is never blocked or absorbed by anything in the house. Surge voltage will rise as high as necessary to obtain earth ground. No protector will stop or absorb what three miles of the world=92s best insulator could not stop - air.
Any voltage differentially between two AC wires is not a typically destructive surge. That surge is made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances. A simplified example: you have assumed a surge as a positive voltage on the black wire and a negative voltage on white. But the destructive surge does not work that way. The destructive surge is a positive on black, white, and green wire. Negative is in earth. Voltage will increase as necessary to find earth ground. Conductors through that computer include wall paint, concrete floors, the telephone wire, linoleum tile, network cable, baseboard heater, etc.
Another possibility is surge positive on black wire, nothing on green or white wire, and negative surge voltage in earth. What does an adjacent plug-in protector adjacent do? Now a positive surge is on black, white, and green wires - and still seeking earth ground. That is the point of Page 42 Figure 8 where the surge found earth ground
8000 volts destructively through the TV.What does your telco do to have better protection from about 100 surges during every thunderstorm? They don't use any plug-in protectors adjacent to equipment. They put every 'whole house' protector where each wire enters the building, as close to earth ground as is practicable, and protectors up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Why 50 meters? Because separation increases protection.
That connection to earth ground must be as short as practicable. Having said that, Polyphaser make a surge protector without an earth ground wire. That protector mounts directly on earth ground to provide even better protection. Polyphaser is a highly respected industry benchmark.
If thinking a protector is protection, then a protector near to an appliance is protection. Again, stop falling for 'Saddam WMD' type reasoning. The protection is earth ground. The protector is nothing more than a connecting device to protection. If any wire enters the building and connects directly to appliances (ie black AC electric wire), then a surge may find earth ground via that appliance. However, if the surge is earthed before entering the building, then the surge need not seek earth through any appliances. That's right. Do you protect 100 devices with one properly earthed protector, or buy
100 plug-in protectors that cannot connect surges to earth?Again, if the surge is not connected to earth, then wires, pipe, floors, wood inside wall, etc all will give surges potentially destructive paths to earth. You read that correctly. Why did Franklin put lightning rods on church steeples? Those wooden steeples were an electrical conductor to what surges seek - earth ground.
You are assuming surges are voltages. See that above simplified example. I never said positive surge voltage. Surges are currents. Voltage will increase as necessary so that the same current will flow. Give that current a short path to earth and near zero voltage results. Attempt to shunt (clamp, connect) all wires adjacent to the appliance and that current will still seek earth ground - unfortunately inside the house. Current of the typically destructive surge must get to earth. Either it gets earth at the service entrance (near zero volts) OR it gets earth 8000 volts destructively via the adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8).
Why does Franklin's lightning rod work? Either surge is electrically conducted by the wooden church steeple. Same current with a high voltage means destructive power. Or surge is connected to earth via metallic wire. Same current with trivial voltage means no destructive power AND all surge energy gets dissipated in earth. Same principle applies to surge protectors. Your surge protector must do what that metallic wire did for Franklin.
Stop thinking of surges as voltages. Stop thinking of surges as voltages between wires. Stop thinking that wires shunted (merged, clamped, connected) together makes surge energy disappear. Do you have protection? Then you can say where surge energy gets dissipated (without currents inside the house). An effective surge protection 'system' makes a short connection to earth. Even sharp wire bends will only subvert that connection to earth. Where does surge energy get harmlessly dissipated? No plug-in protector will answer that. Instead, they hope you *assume* wires shunted together means energy magically disappears. That energy does not disappear and is not absorbed by the protector.
As the NIST also says it:
An ineffective protector has no earth ground AND pretends that surge energy just magically disappears. If connecting black, white, and green wires together, does that surge energy disappear? No. It has more wires to find earth ground destructively via adjacent appliances. Your protection 'system' (and yes, protection is a 'system') must include something to dissipate surge energy. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No plug-in protector even claims protection from the typically destructive surge. Why? The answer is obvious. No effective earth ground. Where is that surge energy dissipated? Adjust your definition of a typically destructive surge that can overwhelm protection already inside all electronics.
Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Too far from earth ground. Too close to electronics. Both only subvert effective protection. But these facts get ignored to hype obscenely profitable plug-in protectors.
Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Each says the typically destructive surge must be earthed. Page 42 Figure 8 even shows how a protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can earth a surge *8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Bud calls that effective protection.
However if Bud=92s sales promoted protectors were effective, then Bud would provide manufacturer spec numbers that list each protection. Bud refuses to provide the only relevant numbers. No plug-in protector can claim to provide that protection. Every Bud citation says why. From Bud=92s NIST citation:
Protectors promoted by Bud are defined by the NIST (see above quote) as useless.
Nothing new here. Earthing protection has been a telco standard for over 100 years. Responsible facilities don't use Bud's 'easiest' solution. All put protectors as close as practicable to earth ground. All create a single point earth ground; what provides the surge protection. Reliable facilities don=92t use effective protection; not obscenely overprices products that Bud promotes.
Bud is not selling earth ground. Bud is promoting a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for obscene profits: $25 or $150. The $10 grocery store protector also is his protector circuit. Admitting this would put profits at risk. Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Quoted above is the standard Bud myth. Bud still refuses to provide any manufacturer spec numbers. Honesty is not Bud. Profits are at risk. Where is that manufacturer spec for protection? Does not exist.
Ho hum - still never answered, embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? ? Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Quoted from both Bud's citations are how plug-in protectors are ineffective. Bud simply cut and pastes the same replies everywhere to even deny what his own citations note.
If a plug-in protector provides that protection, then each type of surge is listed in its numeric specs - with numbers that claim protection. Why does Bud never post those numbers? Even the manufacturer does not claim that protection. Not only do plug-in protectors sometimes contribute to adjacent appliance damage. It does not even claim to provide protection. Why does Bud repost myths repeatedly? Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in protectors. He is so dishonest as to not even admit this conflict of interest.
Install one 'whole house' protector from other responsible companies. Eliminate surge threats to every appliance. Only more responsible companies market 'whole house' protectors - Siemens, Keison, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, GE, etc. Profit margin on effective 'whole house' protectors is not obscene. Therefore APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable do not provide the effective 'whole house' protectors.
How to quickly identify ineffective protectors? 1) No dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That surge energy must be dissipated somewhere.
No, I am not assuming that at all. Surge voltage will rise as high as necessary to obtain earth ground. I (loosely) agree. As an electrical engineer I could explain it better but why complicate things that are already misunderstood.
That's incorrect. Equal voltage surge on all contacts is effectively 0 volts (with respect to the component in question) and will not hurt the component outside of the effects of noise in the circuit. Voltage is the difference in potential. If there is no difference in potential, there is no voltage.
A surge is most certainly additional positive voltage on the black wire. Anything else might be considered a potentially harmful event, but it would not be called a "surge."
No such thing as a negative earth surge. Are you talking about reverse polarity?
If you are trying to differentiate between a surge that seeks to return to the power company and a surge that seeks to return simply to earth ground, than I agree there is somewhat of a difference. But not much since the power company's ground is tied to earth as well.
This is not because the ground is "better" where it enters the house. This is for different reasons. The phone company would not want to add several protection devices throughout your house. Its easier for them to add just one. In addition, if the phone line gets a direct hit by lightning, they don't want it entering your home to seek ground. Thus, they are "grounded" before they enter the home. Like all other metal of any kind.
Dude, you have a misunderstanding of the fundamentals. You must have cut-pasted this because its too long of a rant for you to have just come up with it. Anyway its based on flawed understanding.
Current takes the path of lease resistance. I think you know this much. What makes a protection device work is that it can provide a path of lower resistance than the device it is trying to protect. That is all. The protection is directly proportional to the difference in resistance of the path to ground through the protected device vs. the path to ground the protection device can offer a surge. The key here is "difference" in resistance.
A quality device by a reputable company will not protect better because its installed by your fuse panel as opposed to by your computer. If that were the case then there would be one big surge suppressor installed at the power company.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.